MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
CATHERINE D. PERRY, District Judge.
Mallinckrodt is a defendant in multiple actions filed by third parties seeking damages for exposure to asbestos-containing products. Mallinckrodt alleges that the claims brought against it are covered by an insurance policy issued by Liberty Mutual. Mallinckrodt also claims that Liberty Mutual entered into a cost sharing agreement with its predecessor in interest
Liberty Mutual moves to compel arbitration and dismiss this action under § 4 of the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U.S.C. § 1,
I agree with Mallinckrodt that the question of whether it is obligated to arbitrate this dispute must be decided by this court, and is not an issue left for arbitration. "`[A]rbitration is a matter of contract and a party cannot be required to submit to arbitration any dispute which he has not agreed so to submit.'"
I must look to state law to determine whether the parties are required to arbitrate this dispute. But the moving party — Liberty Mutual — has not bothered to inform the court which state's law should be applied. Instead, it simply argues in a footnote to its reply brief that it is "unlikely" that Missouri law applies. The court cannot determine the scope and applicability of the arbitration clause in the cost sharing agreement if it does not even know what law to apply. The briefs now before me focus on the preliminary issue of whether the court or the arbitrators should decide the arbitrability question, and have not provided me with any basis for determining the actual question of arbitrability. Therefore, the motion will be denied without prejudice to Liberty Mutual's filing a properly supported motion to compel arbitration.
Mallinckrodt and Liberty Mutual obviously have had many years of dealing with one another as the underlying asbestos litigation has wound its way through various courts. Their failure to resolve this dispute, including their failure to agree even on whether arbitration is required, smacks of gamesmanship. I strongly urge them both to reconsider their current posture and attempt to resolve this dispute to avoid further unnecessary expense and delay.
Accordingly,
Comment
User Comments